Laserfiche WebLink
.-~f • <br />/ice <br />energy fuels coal, inc. <br />soulhfielA mine .post oHice~box 449 • Florence, coloratlo 81226 • (303) 784 6395 <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />i <br />August 13, 1986 <br />Mr. Gregg Squire <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman St. <br />423 Centennial Bldg. <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Sediment Pond No. S Embankment Structure <br />Your File No. C81-014 <br />Dear Gregg: <br />~~~~~~~~ <br />AU6 15 X986 <br />MINED LAND <br />RECLAMATION OIViSION <br />This letter is in regard to concesns expressed by Mr. Dale plume, <br />during an inspection, regarding the construction of the embankment <br />at Sediment Pond No. 5. His field inspection and review of the <br />Mine Permit on June 24, 1986, indicated two possible problems: 1. <br />the empbankment appeared to have less than one foot of freeboard <br />in some locations, and 2. the data in the Permit engineering <br />certification was not consistent with the information shown on the <br />approved construction drawing. Dale recommended that we should <br />recalculate the design storm Eor the area and then field check the <br />dam to see if it would contain the design storm. We would then <br />redesign and reconstruct as necessary to meet compliance, and <br />provide documentation to MLRD. <br />We investigated further into the Mine Permit and located the <br />revised plan map of Pond No. 5 which contains specifications <br />matching those shown on the pond certification document (refer to <br />map: "Dorchester No. 1 Mine, Sediment Pond No. 5, Modifications" <br />dated February 21, 1984, Vol. 5, Mine Permit). The pond and <br />embankment are therefore in compliance in terms of design. <br />We also surveyed the embankment and discharge structure and deter- <br />mined that one area of the embankment provided only 0.8 feet of <br />freeboard. The top of the embankment had been degraded by heavy <br />equipment travel in wet weather during G.E.C. reclamation acti- <br />